Meet The Puritans

Review of In Living Color

Posted on 12. Jan, 2012 by Ryan McGraw.

I recently posted a reprint of my review of Danny Hyde’s book on the subject of images of Christ on Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary’s online journal, Katechomen. In my opinion, In Living Color is the best book that I have read on this subject. I wrote the review to help promote the book and to show why it should be at the top of a short list of books on images. The review appeared originally in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal. You can read the review here:

http://katekomen.gpts.edu/2012/01/divinity-in-media.html

Continue Reading

Books 2 Look 4

Posted on 11. Jan, 2012 by Mark Jones.

A new blog hosted by Rob Ventura worth checking out is called books2look4, which profiles books by Reformation Heritage Books and also gives sneak previews of other books coming out this year, including one by Ryan McGraw.  You can get a sneak peek of a book written by Joel Beeke and myself here, titled A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life.

Also, if you’re into reading on the late 17thC controversy over neonomianism and antinomianism, D. Patrick Ramsey has posted his WTS M.Th thesis online for all to read.

Continue Reading

Thomas Manton on Cultivating Spiritual Joy

Posted on 23. Dec, 2011 by Ryan McGraw.

The material below comes from the notes that I am taking from Thomas Manton’s sermons on John 17. Sermon XXI (on John 17:13. Works, X, 352-363) instructs believers regarding the necessity of spiritual joy and the means of cultivating it. The material is a bit rough in form, since it comes from my personal notes directly. However, since the subject of joy in the Lord is so important, and since Manton’s comments are so valuable, I decided to post them as is with the hope that some of you may find them helpful.

352 – This text introduces the author, the quantity, and the quality of joy. The joy set forth in the passage is a joy that is from Christ and a joy that concerns Christ. 353 – This joy is not only an accomplished fact, but Christ gives it to us abundantly. Believers know this joy in their experience.

353 – Two observations: 1. “Christ is a fountain of consolation.” Christ intercedes for us in two ways: through his own prayer on our behalf, and through the Holy Spirit in our hearts. Rom. 8:26. “The Spirit testifieth to our hearts the quality of that intercession Christ maketh for us in heaven; it is the echo of it; the inward interpellation of the soul is the echo of Christ’s intercession.” “Here is a remedy for all the afflictions of the church.” 2. Christ exercised much care in order to secure the joy of his people.

353 – First, What this joy is. 1. It is not a worldly joy, but a heavenly joy; not a carnal joy, but a spiritual joy. 354 – *“That which Christ would establish is a cheerful piety, not a profane joy.” If Christ delights in us (Prov. 8:31), then should we not delight in him? 2. “The joy is full because the object is infinite; we can desire nothing beyond him.” He made reference here to “peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Ghost” ( See Westminster Shorter Catechism 36). “It is better felt than expressed.” It is a foretaste of heaven. 3. It is inward in quality and it comes to us in the midst of afflictions.

354 – Second, “How much Christ’s heart is set upon it.” This is why he sent the Holy Spirit. Jn. 14:19; 15:11. 355 – “Christ maketh this to be his main work and aim, that in this life we might have peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Ghost, and in the life to come, joy forevermore.” Likewise, “the whole ministry of the church” is designed to serve this purpose.

355 – Third, The reasons for Christ’s great concern over our joy. 1. It is very useful in our spiritual lives. Neh. 8:10. This joy makes us pursue our duties and our callings with comfort. 2. “To mar the taste of carnal pleasures.” Carnal men rejoice in carnal pleasures because they have no better pleasures. 356 – 3. Our joy honors Christ. “Nothing bringeth reproach upon the ways of God so much as the sadness of those that profess him.” 4. Christ is delighted when he sees us cheerful. “The Lord doth not delight in a sad devotion.” We make the heart of Christ glad by keeping our own hearts cheerful.

356 – Fourth, Observations concerning joy. 1. The providence of God aims at the joy and the welfare of his creatures. “All actions of godliness have a delight mixed with them.” 2. “Spiritual joy ariseth more from hope than possession.” Rom. 12:12; Heb. 3:6; Rom. 5:2. “It is an affection proper to the next life; but some birds sing in winter. Though we have not an actual possession of glory, yet there is a certainty of possession.” 3. We know more of this joy in adversity than we do in prosperity. 1 Pet. 1:6; Rom. 5:3. In our afflictions, we taste in ourselves the evil that Christ has ultimately freed us from. Our temporal sorrows remind us of the privilege of being delivered from eternal sorrows. 357 – 4. Those who have tasted the greatest sorrows have the greatest joys. Is. 57:18. “Unutterable groans make way for ineffable joys. . . . God permits sorrows, that we may find the fuller comfort.” 5. Our joy fluctuates, but even when it is gone in our experience, we still possess the right to it. Jn. 16:22. “If we lose it ourselves, it is not utterly lost.” Just as the sun always moves but does not always shine, so when the sense of joy fails a Christian, faith supplies what is lacking in order to help us to press onward. 6. “Men naturally are more susceptible of sorrow that of joy.” “Men are more ingenious and inventive to torment themselves than they are to find out arguments of joy.” In part, this is due to our own ingratitude, but it is also due partly to God’s work in making us long for heaven more.

357 – Use 1 – These things show us the goodness of God. Our wages are a part of our work, and our service to him is a part of our reward. This world is a vale of tears, but the sun shines sometimes even when it rains. Use 2 – 358 – Let us not slander the ways of God, as though he would take away all delight from us. “God doth not require that you should renounce delight, but change the course of it. Joy is not abrogated, but preferred. Do not think the practice of religion is full of sadness and heaviness.” If we lack joy, then it is because we have not tasted deeply enough the promises of God in Christ. Use 3 – Let us despise the “dreggy” delights of the world. We are empty by nature and worldly joys cannot fill us. “We need to be refreshed with other pleasures. . . . God in Christ is full and fresh to all eternity; angels are not weary of him.” “There is a mirth becoming the gravity of a Christian.”

359 – Use 4 – Reproof [1] To those who are sad always. “It is a sad thing that Christians should not have the wisdom to make use of their own felicity.” This shows that we have “ill thoughts of God.” Like a snail that leaves is “slaver” upon a beautiful flower, Christians who complain and lack joy in the Lord “leave the slaver of their murmurings upon [God’s mercies], as if all were nothing.” 360 – “In the garden of Christ there groweth other fruit besides crabs.” “Your discontent cannot be greater than the grounds of your comfort.” We should never mourn without hope, even when we mourn over our sins. “God doth not forget his relation to us, and so should not we.” Jer. 3:14. [2] Others rejoice who have no proper matter for rejoicing. We cannot rejoice in God until we have a true interest in God.

361 – Use 5 – Use your minds in order to exercise this joy. [1] Consider the reasons that you have for rejoicing. (1) Marvel at the change that God has made in your soul. 1 Pet. 2:9. “The light is more marvelous because of the foregoing darkness.” Christians must consider what they were and what they are now. (2) Consider the mercies of God that you have in hand presently. Rom. 8:37. The saints have communion with God even when they are banished from among men. (3) Consider your future hope. Heb. 3:6. “We are heirs-apparent to the crown of heaven. We may rejoice in what we possess, we may glory in what we hope for.” 362 – [2] Use the graces and the ordinances that God has appointed in order to cultivate spiritual joy. The graces in view are faith, hope, and obedience. Faith represents to us the excellence of truth as well as the reality of spiritual things. Joy arises either from the actual possession of some good, or from the firm expectation of it. Heb. 10:34. “It is the nature of faith to make things absent present.” Faith gives “an actual presence” to the objects of our hope. Hope “is an earnest elevation of the mind to look for what faith counteth real.” Rom. 12:12. Faith gives the title to joy, hope gives the sight of joy, and obedience provides the evidence of these things. By obedience we walk in a condition that makes us capable of joy. Therefore, we must beware of even the least sin. Walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost “is a sweet couple.” Acts 9:31.

The ordinances that we must use are the word, prayer, the sacraments, and meditation. 363 – In the word, God opens his own heart to us. In prayer, we open our hearts to God. Sacraments are a means of fostering joy because they are “sealing ordinances.” It is not the external elements that delight us, but “the renewing of the covenant.” Meditation “is the proper natural use of reason.” “It is a refreshing to the soul to think of creation and providence; as a son taketh pleasure in a history wherein are recorded his father’s valiant acts. It is a pure recreation. But oh! the sweetness of redemption, the excellency of glory! The thoughts are sent as spies into the land of promise; hereby we have a Pisgah-sight; it giveth us a foretaste of heaven, and filleth our souls with joy and blessedness.”

Continue Reading

Recent Church Histories

Posted on 18. Dec, 2011 by Lee Gatiss.

I recently had an article published in the excellent international theology journal Churchman. It is a review of a whole bunch of recent books on church history, called “The Lessons of History.”

It can be downloaded from http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_125_3_Gatiss.pdf.

In it, I encourage pastors to have a go at teaching Church history to their congregations. Is that a good idea?

Continue Reading

Jesus + Nothing = Everything (An Analysis)

Posted on 16. Dec, 2011 by Mark Jones.

Jesus + Nothing = Everything?

At the heart of the Antinomian crisis in the seventeenth century was the debate over the terms, and relationship between, the law and the gospel. Affirming a law-gospel contrast does not make one orthodox any more than affirming grace in salvation makes one Reformed. Arminians, Roman Catholics, and Reformed theologians all insist that we are saved by grace. It is what you do with those categories and how you relate them to each other, as well as how you define each category, that makes you Reformed or something else. In the seventeenth century the Antinomians had a powerful weapon in their arsenal, which has great rhetorical force even in today’s climate, namely, the idea of positioning oneself as a defender of “free grace.” The debate was not so much about the necessity of grace for holiness, but the fact that certain orthodox truths were either softened or outright denied. Moreover, the indicative-imperative model was generally agreed upon, but what was not so obvious to some was the force or necessity of the imperatives. So, for example, are good works the way of life or also the way to life? Tobias Crisp affirmed the former but denied the latter whereas the Westminster divines and Reformed orthodoxy in general held to the view that good works were both the way of life and the way to life (see WLC 32). In other words, good works are necessary for salvation, but not for justification.

In England there were theologians who constantly sounded the drum of “grace, grace, grace”, but they were nonetheless viewed as either suspicious or downright in serious error according to a number of Reformed theologians. In fact, a close reading of the Westminster documents shows that the Antinomian threat was viewed with as much, if not more, seriousness by the divines than Arminianism and Roman Catholicism. Unsurprisingly, Antinomian theologians accused their critics of Arminian, neonomian, or popish tendencies (i.e., legalism).

Even today similar rhetoric abounds; not only the strong language used to denounce others, but the types of theologies that were advanced during the seventeenth century. One present-day example that highlights the issue well is Tullian Tchividjian’s book, Jesus + Nothing = Everything, which is a sort of spiritual biography that relates a massive shift in his thinking that took place as his church merged with Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida in 2009. The change in his thinking has led him to formulate a theology that in my view has affinities with Lutheranism and the seventeenth-century English Antinomians.

Grace + Anything = Legalism

In the first place, the rhetoric of the book warrants discussion. In Tullian’s view, “a lot of preaching these days has been unwittingly, unconsciously seduced by moralism” (49). He adds that “So many contemporary sermons strengthen this slavery to self. ‘Do more, try harder’ is the constant refrain.” In fact, “Many sermons today provide nothing more than a ‘to do’ list” … “It’s all law (what we must do) and no gospel (what Jesus has done)” (49). These are, of course, strong accusations and perhaps they are true, but they seem to me to be comments that are easily made, but not quite so easily proved. As a minister, I spend the vast majority of my Sundays in my own pulpit and would be unable to make such a comment even about the city of Vancouver, much less the North American context. This brings me to a further concern about the general tone of the book, namely, that if ministers are not preaching the type of theology prescribed in this book they are inevitably legalistic to some degree. Indeed, the threat of legalism surfaces again and again throughout the book, so much so that it is the one primary threat to true gospel-centered Christianity: “I believe it’s more theologically accurate to say that there is one primary enemy of the gospel – legalism – but it comes in two forms” (50). Of course, one could easily respond and say that “Antinomianism” is the only threat to the gospel because all sin – whether refusing to believe the gospel or murdering someone – is against God’s law. Why are preachers legalistic? Because “moralistic preaching is stimulated by a fear of the scandalous freedom that gospel grace promotes and promises” (50, emphasis mine). Tullian argues that preachers fear that focusing on grace will cause people to abuse it, so instead they feel the need to “throw some law in there, to help make sure Christian people walk the straight and narrow” (50, emphasis mine). So throwing in “some law” is a bad thing in preaching? What are we to make of the letters to the seven churches in Revelation or the Sermon on the Mount?

+ > /

In reacting to perceived deficiencies in present-day preaching and theologizing, Tullian has placed himself in a position where it appears to be “either/or” instead of “both/and”. In his online interview with Ed Stetzer (part 2) he makes the argument, advanced by the Lutheran theologian, Gerhard O. Forde, “that sanctification is simply getting used to your justification–it’s receiving Christ’s words ‘It is finished’ into our rebellious regions of unbelief.” This theme recurs throughout the book. Thus “sanctification is the daily hard work of going back to the reality of our justification” (95). This seems to impact his exegesis of Philippians 2:12-13. Verse 12 tells us that “We’ve got work to do – but what exactly is it? Get better? Try harder? Pray more? Get more involved in church? Read the Bible longer? What precisely is Paul exhorting us to do?” According to Tullian, “God works his work in you, which is the work already accomplished by Christ. Our hard work, therefore, means coming to a greater understanding of his work” (96). I fail to see how Philippians 2:12-13 can be interpreted in that light, particularly since Paul exhorts believers to work out their salvation with “fear and trembling”. In Tullian’s manner of speaking, quietism (or, interior passivity) seems to be the chief characteristic of the Christian life whereby believers engage in mental appropriation of Christ’s finished work. But Reformed theology has never painted the Christian life in quite that way. Sanctification is not “simply” getting used to our justification. It certainly involves that, but the Scriptures are clear that there are other motives for holiness. Gratitude is not the only motivator; rather, for important ontological reasons, we must obey because of who we are and who God is (e.g., 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Peter 1:15, 17; 1 Jn. 3:3). Here is where Reformed theology has stressed the “both/and” to the Christian life when it comes to sanctification. John Owen’s exposition of Romans 8:13, for example, paints a very different picture of the sanctified life than the one found in Jesus + Nothing = Everything. Other examples of the “either/or” fallacy come up when he argues that “It is always the gospel of God’s free grace that should motivate our right doing; otherwise we are nothing better than Pharisees” (153). But this is wrong. The Antinomians argued that a man is under law, and not under grace, when he obeys the law as law, and obeys in light of not only its promises but also its threats. But the divines disagreed with this view (see WCF 19.6).

Justification + Nothing = Gospel?

In the book Tullian makes the point frequently that he came to understand that the gospel is not just for unbelievers but also for believers. If we make the gospel essentially synonymous with justification then I can see why this was such a breakthrough for Tullian. But this leads to a great deal of confusion, particularly since he seems to understand “Christ for us” as essentially synonymous with justification. For example, in referring to the “glorious exchange” (2 Cor. 5:21), he writes: “That’s the gospel” (84-85). And later he posits that “The gospel, in fact, transforms us precisely because it’s not itself a message about our internal transformation but about Christ’s external substitution” (94). What concerns me in the debate over the relationship between justification and sanctification is not so much the logical or temporal priority given to justification, but the view, espoused by Tullian, whereby sanctification is essentially swallowed up by justification because, to repeat, “sanctification is simply the art of getting used to justification” (see also p. 172). In my view, the gospel is not synonymous with justification. Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, which includes the guilt (Rom. 5; justification) and power (Rom. 6; sanctification) of sin. It seems that many associate “for our sins” exclusively with the guilt of our sin; but the Scriptures are clear that “for our sins” cannot be reduced to simply the guilt of our sin; the good news is that not only the guilt, but the enslaving power of my sin has been dealt with by Christ and the Spirit. Therefore, the gospel is not simply Christ for us, but also Christ in us. Redemption (the gospel) must have application or it is not redemption. While a major part of our sanctification includes looking to Christ for us, an equally important aspect of our sanctification involves Christ in us, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27). Tullian exhorts us to look outside of ourselves to Christ’s finished work, but we also need to know that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:16-17), which necessarily means that our identity shapes us in our sanctification. Indeed, contrary to Tullian’s view that sanctification feeds off justification and not vice versa, there are theologically and pastorally sensitive ways to explain how our assurance of justification may feed on sanctification. His view of sanctification – looking to justification – won’t allow for that, however.

Law ≠ Gospel & Gospel = Law

The section on the law and the gospel in the book evinces a problem with certain versions of the law-gospel antithesis, especially when this antithesis is read into the Christian life and not just simply justification. Tullian notes that the law is good, but we are not. Therefore, “Paul, as a believer in Christ, has allowed the law to continue driving him to the gospel. And that’s what we’re to do as well” (188). In my view, Paul sometimes speaks negatively of the Torah; he shows its impotence apart from the Spirit to give the life it promises. Some versions of the law-gospel antithesis seem make a mess of Paul’s own antitheses. For example, in Romans 7 the law is placed on the “Spirit” (not the “flesh”) side of the Spirit-flesh antithesis. Sin leads to condemnation because the law exposes us as sinners. But in chapter 8 the law becomes a liberating, not condemning, power because of the Spirit. I would also note that Paul often does not place “law” on the expected side of the antithesis. It is interesting that in 1 Corinthians 7:19 Paul does not say, “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but believing the gospel.” Rather, what counts, in that particular context, is “keeping God’s commandments”. The law in the New Covenant becomes a quickening power that, by the Spirit, sets us free from sin and death (Rom. 8:1-4). The Puritan, Anthony Burgess, noted that the law acts as means of grace, not simply to drive us to Christ for justification, but to make us like Christ in sanctification. Therefore, the antithesis between the law and the gospel is not an end in itself; it only entered because of sin. Instead, the gospel has in view removing the absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer because in Christ the law is my friend because God is my friend (Ps. 119). In essence, my concern has to do with the fact that a number of biblical passages are read in a manner where people automatically assume that the text is driving us to Christ for justification when in fact the text is saying nothing of the sort (e.g., Matt. 5:20, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees”).

Historically speaking, the difference between the law and the gospel is not a distinction between demanding and forbidding, which was an Antinomian position, but rather a difference between the kinds of acts that are demanded. The law demands perfect works whereas the gospel demands faith, repentance and sincere – albeit imperfect – obedience. Faith is an antecedent condition whereas gospel obedience is a consequent condition. Samuel Rutherford, likewise, argued against the Antinomians, who posited that the gospel only persuades, by insisting that the gospel persuades and commands, and with a stronger force than the law does! In the law and the gospel there is not an oppositio contradictionis (the Antinomian view) but an oppositio contrareitatis. In fact, as Reformed divines noted, in sanctification the law and the gospel “sweetly comply” (WCF 19.7).

Love + Love = Love

I recognize that the book is not a formal theological treatise, but when dealing with such sensitive topics it seems to me that one needs to be careful with the rhetoric that is used, especially when certain Reformed truths are denied. One area where I think a good theological distinction would have helped, if not changed his view, is Tullian’s belief that “We seem to inherently assume that our performance is what will finally determine whether our relationship with God is good or bad: so much good behavior from us generates so much affection from God; or so much bad behavior from us generates so much anger from God” (98). The distinction between amor benevolentiæ and amor complacentiæ, used by almost all of the Reformed orthodox, explains how God loves us unconditionally in Christ, apart from works, and conditionally in Christ, in light of our obedience or lack thereof (see Jn. 14:21). In other words, God loves us, despite our unworthiness with the love of benevolence; but he also loves us because of our close communion and obedience with him with the love of complacency. He delights in certain graces (e.g., acts of faith). Tullian speaks of God’s love of benevolence to his creatures as if that were the only love and so our growth in grace has no bearing on God’s love for us. The love of benevolence is certainly primary or antecedent to the love of complacency (and inviolable), but our obedience or disobedience will result in a different type of complacent love between God and the saint. The English Antinomian, John Saltmarsh, denied this distinction and affirmed, in similar manner to Tullian, that God’s love for us does not change in relation to our good behavior.

Faith = Justification + Obedience

It is not that there are no good points made in the book. I acknowledge that. But I’ve read enough from John Saltmarsh and Tobias Crisp, as well as authors from Arminian and Catholic traditions, to know that even those who depart from Reformed orthodoxy can and often do say helpful things. Yet in Jesus + Nothing … there are too many statements that are either inaccurate or confusing. And the book is also highly repetitive (note, for example, the same quote from Berkouwer on pp. 173, 190). The fact is, books on this topic have been written before, but without the aforementioned shortcomings. Moreover, I can’t help but get the feeling that a number of Reformed ministers, both in the past and in the present, would be viewed as legalistic in their preaching if judged by the theology of this book. But this book does not set forth classical Reformed theology. We do have work to do. And that work involves trusting in Christ’s finished work. But we also need to “Pray more, Get more involved in church, [and] Read the Bible longer.” These are necessary components to our sanctification. Nonetheless, God’s graciousness in his Son and by the Spirit assures us that he gives what he commands.

In the end, the issue is not so much about the necessity of preaching salvation by grace. Rather, sometimes error comes in the form not by what people do say, but by what they fail to say. And, as J I Packer has so eloquently reminded us, “A half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.”

-          Mark Jones

Continue Reading

George Whitefield and Revival Rivalries

Posted on 12. Dec, 2011 by Lee Gatiss.

Last week I finished off my autumnal teaching marathon with a morning of lectures on George Whitefield and the Evangelical Revival, at the Christian Heritage School of Theology here in Cambridge.

The first talk, which can be downloaded from here, was on George Whitefield himself, the man, his theology, and his impact. What a great Reformed Evangelical Anglican he was!

The second talk here was called Revival Rivalries. I had a look here at John Wesley’s infamous sermon in which he compares Calvinists to the baby-sacrificing worshippers of the false god Moloch, and other calm, uncontroversial things like that. We looked at Whitefield’s reply, and then Wesley’s continuing polemics against the much younger Augustus Toplady. To wrap this one off, we spent a while examining that famous controversation between Wesley and Charles Simeon, which is so often quoted to show that really Wesley wasn’t all that bad and Arminians basically believe the same as Calvinists. But is that what the conversation shows, or is there more going on underneath the surface…? See what you think!

Controversial stuff, but we had an edifying time pondering the truth and how it should be defended in a Christian way.

Continue Reading

Preaching and St Antholin’s Church

Posted on 05. Dec, 2011 by Lee Gatiss.

As I mentioned last week, I’ve been speaking here in Cambridge about church history, for an organisation called Christian Heritage. Last month I lectured on the Puritans.

My first talk was on “who were the Puritans.” My second talk was on the Puritan love of preaching. Often with talks on this subject you get an exposition of a particular preacher or theme. So just to be different, I decided (after a look at Grindal, Perkins, Owen, and Thomas Horton on the importance of preaching) to focus on a particular church: the grand nursery of Puritanism itself, St. Antholin’s in London (see picture, from a print I have up on the wall at home).

If you’d like to listen in, the audio mp3 is available to download via this link (right click & “save as”): http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/PlayMedia.aspx?download=file&media_id=79764&file_id=88469

Enjoy!

Continue Reading

You’re Reformed, So What?

Posted on 29. Nov, 2011 by Danny Hyde.

Calling all single adults in Southern California. Logos West, a ministry of Reformed Youth Services, will be hosting its annual single adults retreat January 5–7, 2011, on the beautiful snow capped peaks of Big Bear, California. I will be the main speaker on the theme, “You’re Reformed, So What?” My sessions will be an exposition and application of 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 as we think about how the great change we’ve undergone causes the following in us:

1. A Changed Mind [Head]

2. A Changed Affections [Heart]

3. A Changed Will [Hands]

For more info, check out this page or go to Logos West on Facebook. There are $70 scholarships to help defray the registration cost as well.

Continue Reading

The Puritans and the Gospel

Posted on 28. Nov, 2011 by Lee Gatiss.

I’ve been speaking here in Cambridge about church history, for an organisation called Christian Heritage. They are based at the Round Church here in the city (see picture). This month I lectured on… yes, you guessed it… the Puritans.

My first talk was on “who were the Puritans.” I looked at their distinctive theology and their relationship to the Church of England. And I also examined their gospel-missionary hearts in terms of their politics, theology, and evangelism all being driven by grace.

If you’d like to listen in, the audio mp3 is available to download via this link (right click & “save as”): http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/PlayMedia.aspx?download=file&media_id=79763&file_id=88468

Enjoy!

P.S. The lectures were actually in a lecture room nearby, but I thought you’d like to see the Round Church itself anyway!

Continue Reading